I have seen a lot of these photos,thats neat that you have one in hand. OOPS.just re-read your post and see you copied it.
Here is a website article with lots of photos and an explanation. I guess wiggly kids have always been a problem. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stmothers-background-far-mums-good-photo.html
When you have a young jihadi in your control, you really don't want the little fellow to be traceable.
Here is another link to check out . . . http://ridiculouslyinteresting.com/2012/01/05/hidden-mothers-in-victorian-portraits/
Here's a photo taken in 1906 of a several months-old baby. I think I see a partial "hand" on the right of the baby near the baby's arm. Is the mother "hiding" in this photo or was the mother dressed in a dark color and only partially "cropped out" at the top of the photo?
I'm wondering if maybe it isn't mom holding the baby but rather some helper/relative/friend. When my kids were little I'm not sure that hiding under a blanket would have helped them be calm but if someone cuddled them an I distracted them by talking to them while standing next to photographer might. So I'm wondering if it isn't "mom" at all so maybe they wouldn't want to be included in the photo.
I've found out from the Facebook photo collectors group that some people collect these types of photos. The general name for them is "hidden mother" -- however, the semi-hidden person might be a mother, a father, or a photographer's assistant, among other possibilities. Fig
That's very interesting. "Hidden Mother." Collectable as to type. Yes indeed, I WILL remember that one. .....every day, something new.... Thanks, Fig.
You see them more often in Tintypes than albumen prints. Seems to have gone out of fashion by the late 1880s. It is hard for us to understand why, and people have given different explanations. Yes, the mother or helper is holding a frightened or fidgety child. I think it mostly came from a naivete in regard to classic portraiture. Only rich folks had family paintings or miniatures. The tin type brought portraits to the masses. Early photographers looked to old painting for a source of inspiration. In very old portraits, the tradition was for the royal to show his wealth and status. A beautiful young wife, expensive gold and silver, jewels, and even his heir was treated as a 'possession' or sign of wealth. Thus, the painting of the progeny by themselves was a portrait 'form'. It is also possible in these photos that the hidden person wasn't the child's mother, a relative or servant, and they didn't want to confuse the photo with a 'Madonna' portrait form, which would suggest the poser was the child's actual mother. Mortality rates were high for child birth.
Hi, Speaking of showing off worth. I remember hearing about a woman who was going to die and wanted a painting of her made for the husband. Only she had the painter add a wonderful diamond and ruby necklace and several diamond rings which she never had. Asked why she did that her reply was that when her husband remarried she wanted the new wife to pester him where the jewels were. lol greg
...Gaslight, reversed. Portrait of Tilda Swinton -- that's easy casting. Wife #2 -- that's harder...Winona Ryder, perhaps. Husband -- Jeremy Irons, of course. And what do YOU do with the empty spaces in your mind?i
Not as dramatic as some of the other photos but with all this talk about these photos I was able to find this one. Rather faded and not such a happy baby so I like it a lot lol!
Poor baby looks kind of squished. I never would have realized there was a "hidden momma" in this photo.
And that would be the earliest known portrait of John James Corbett, aka Gentleman John. Came out with his dukes up he did, he did!
